Oh, I understood what they meant. But in that case, that user should be counted for each search engine only by the proportion that user uses each search engine. However you determine "the market", there is only 100% of it.
ComScore estimates Google's market share at 42.2%, Yahoo's at 38.8% and MSN's at 31.8% (numbers do not add up to 100%, since Internet users rely on multiple engines).
Someone seems to have misunderstood the definition of "market share". Either that or the definition of "%".
Yeah. Exactly. I don't mind that Real has reverse engineered FairPlay. But wouldn't Real react faster & harder with the DMCA if Apple had included.rm decoding with the latest rev of Quicktime?
Presumably not. Apple didn't say anything about Spotlight aside from the keynote & the PR stuff on www.apple.com. Absolutely everybody was going on and on about better/extensible metadata in HFS+, which is not what they did.
though I do have to admit the profile is a lie. I wrote it a couple years ago, so I'm not really 19:P
They only want you when you're seventeen. When you're twenty-one You're no fun. They take a polaroid and let you go. Say they'll let you know. So come on.
Who needs a filesystem in a database when you have a database that lives on your filesystem (updatedb). Get that updating in realtime, with more things (like permissions, access times etc.) and a lot of the work is done.
PR & tech journalists to the contrary, that is all that is involved in Spotlight & WinFS. Spotlight runs on HFS+. WinFS runs on NTFS. Both are databases stored as files on existing filesystems. The only difference between those databases & updatedb is that they may be using better database design (dunno) and that they update in real time via background processes.
I'm wrote a journal entry guessing as much about Spotlight, but since then more evidence has arrived, and I'm convinced that both WinFS & Spotlight are implemented that way. The features & implementation details are quite different, but not the filesystem.
We'll probably eventually start calling these databases a part of the "filesystem" much like right now some people will call mspaint.exe & bash a part of the operating system.
As it stands, you can quote Encyclopedia Britannica in any school essay. If I was marking some homework that relied on referencing Wikipedia, I'd have to fail them.
I haven't been allowed to quote an encyclopedia since gradeschool. If you are failing 12 year olds for quoting the Wikipedia, then you're just a dick. If you are allowing your 14 year old students to directly quote encyclopedias, then you're moving kind of slow, aren't you?
Yes, the Britannica has more fact-checking than Wikipedia. However, the value of that level on fact checking is lost to me. I want fact checking of primary sources & journal research. Even the Britanica is just a review.
help someone help while bio is getting a snack this is my only chance to get help i'm tie d up in the basement as a sex slave pelase call the cops somebody help me
Bi()hazard, your slave needs more attention.
P.S. Judging by your profile:
Hi! I'm a 19 year old girl college student (CS major). When I'm not being a geek, coding and playing quake, I do a little modeling to pay the bills, play IM ice hockey, swim, listen to Rage, Sevendust, and Incubus, and learn how to brew beer. Right now I'm single;) hope you have fun reading my comments, and don't forget to give me karma!:D
I find it hard to believe that your sex slave is actually trying to escape. It's probably just a cry for help.
Please don't think that I'm jumping to the conclusion that he's guilty, as much as it appears so from my question.
Got it.
Drunk drivers routinely get sentenced to 5 years here in PA, and there's no intent there. The Model Penal Code authorizes sentences of up to 10 years for manslaughter (reckless killing of another--note the lack of intent), so I think my 5-10 years is about right.
Your 5-10 years may be perfectly in line with sentences for similar crimes in our justice system. I still think that it's unbelievably cruel and wasteful of tax dollars. I don't feel that anyone deserves to go to our prisons, so I'd prefer to only send people there when it is absolutely unavoidable. I'm just plain anti-prison. I realize my position might not be very popular.
I think this guy bears a very high degree of guilt. He was behaving at least very recklessly. Enough to support a murder charge, I don't know. Would have to actually see the trial. But it's close.
By degree of guilt, I meant that I am not sure he committed the crime he is being accused of. You are assuming that he is guilty of the crime he is accused of. Don't.
I would say parole the guy in maybe 5-10 years though.
Sending someone to prison for 5 years for a crime with no intent would be unbelievably cruel, and also unbelievably wasteful of tax dollars. If you feel that this crime constitutes criminal negligence, then I would expect a higher burden of proof than has been exhibited in this case.
The original right holder isn't the current rights holder. Some transfer took place...
If Guthry had already given up some of his rights to the song (as per his copyright notice), then he could not transfer those rights to his heirs. JibJab might very well wind up standing behind Woody Guthrie's original copyright notice in court. Your original comment:
This is what happens when artists sell the rights to their work for a buck or two. Got a problem with the RIAA, MPAA etc, talk to the stupid artists who are having caviar dreams and champagne wishes.
As scripture says, you cannot serve two masters.
The point is, artists are in complete control UNTIL the moment they worry about $$ instead of art. Most artists are too stupid to understand this concept. It is easier to blame the "Big Corporations" for their own ignornace.
Is horseshit. It is leastaways completely irrelevant to Woody Guthry.
As I said in my previous post, there are very few people that I would actually send to prison.
This guy's crime, likelyhood of recidivism, and degree of guilt are not high enough for me to want him in jail rather than on the sidewalk.
I don't understand why you say "Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers." We do not do that to drunk drivers. Drunk drivers pay a lot of money and get back on the road. Drunk drivers are a revenue stream for local government.
The idea for a portable device is the ability to quickly turn it on and use it. This appears to be using a version of XP, which to me sounds like a boot sequence to start it. Does not make it very practical for keep track of PDA type stuff.
Modern PCs have a "sleep" function that uses minimal amounts of power while avoiding boot time when you need to use your computer.
There are many valid complaints about this device. Boot time isn't one of them.
Congress should
reject proposals to ban new technologies or business models to solve copyright problems (examples include file sharing, copy protection, and "collusion" among creators);
reject proposals to impose new technologies or business models to solve copyright problems (examples include federally certified copy protection standards and compulsory licensing);
Phase out compulsory licensing for all communications content industries and avoid extending it to future services such as online downloading and streaming; and
take the constitutional principle of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts" seriously, but don't extend copyright protections far beyond reasonable terms.
The "Napsterization" of just about everything digitizable - books, music, movies, and, of course, software itself - has brought copyright issues to the forefront as never before, reenergizing the debate over questions such as the following:
Why do we protect intellectual property at all?
Do we really have "property rights" to our intangible creations the same way we do to our homes or the land on which they rest?
Are there more effective market-oriented ways of encouraging artistic creation and scientific discovery than through the use of copyright and patent laws that protect a limited monopoly?
Those questions are hardly new, of course...
Leave it to the CATO Institute to get it right. Well, right for Libertarians. IMHO, whenever you find a conservative disagreeing with the Libertarians, it's because they're doing something fucked up.
I reckon the libertarian party is a lot more likely to eliminate unnecessary expansions of government than the greens or any "left wing" group.
Not when it comes to intellectual property. Go to their webpage (or the the Cato Institute) and look up their position. Remember that idiotic Rand Institute article on the subject? I realize that Libertarians are different from Randians are different from the Rand Institute, but it's only an exaggerated case. They are so obsessed with the sanctity of property that they can't see that IP is 100% a government invention. (And that's ok, but it's counter to most other Libertarian ideals.)
Many Libertarians don't feel that way, I'm sure. But it's not the party line.
But I see no reason to expect that the Greens are better. Most Americans fought over who had an idea first in kindergarten, and have never grown out of it. Everyone I speak to about the issue thinks of things almost like the French system: Artists have moral rights over their works, and it is wrong to infringe on them.
Google isn't bearing easy fruit, so I don't know what the Green position is. I see this, which is promising. Iduno. That's a reason to think that maybe the Greens are better.
SBC is a disincentive, not an incentive. Media piracy helps SBC, because they sell high speed internet access.
Depending on how vaguely INDUCE is termed & interpreted, (I have no idea about this.) SBC's current business practices could be considered illegal under the INDUCE act, and they may be required to change or face consequences. Dunno.
1) Grandparent poster was funny. Admit it. What is inherently childish about making a joke?
He's not mocking Christians. He's mocking insane Christians, who really do exist. Read about faith healers. Crazy.
2) What did his post have to do with Darwinism? Why did you bring that up?
3) Despite the article write-up, I fail to see how this gives evolutionists any more "ammo." (And I'm an evolutionist.)
If you find yourself debating evolution, and the evolutionist brings up this peice of news as a general peice of evidence for evolution, then you don't need to finish the conversation. The evolutionist obviously doesn't understand evolution. (This happens a lot.)
4) How did grandparent post offend you? I don't understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Class of 1999: "It's the last lesson you'll ever learn!"
Set in 1999 Seattle, which has been "declared a warzone" and must employ security robots as high school teachers.
Oh, I understood what they meant. But in that case, that user should be counted for each search engine only by the proportion that user uses each search engine. However you determine "the market", there is only 100% of it.
Yeah. Exactly. I don't mind that Real has reverse engineered FairPlay. But wouldn't Real react faster & harder with the DMCA if Apple had included .rm decoding with the latest rev of Quicktime?
Right. I'm sure that'd put /. up at least around 900th place.
you are joking
alexa is crap
but doubleclick doesn't give a flying fuck about slashdot.
tempfs
Presumably not. Apple didn't say anything about Spotlight aside from the keynote & the PR stuff on www.apple.com. Absolutely everybody was going on and on about better/extensible metadata in HFS+, which is not what they did.
When you're twenty-one
You're no fun.
They take a polaroid and let you go.
Say they'll let you know.
So come on.
Who needs a filesystem in a database when you have a database that lives on your filesystem (updatedb). Get that updating in realtime, with more things (like permissions, access times etc.) and a lot of the work is done.
PR & tech journalists to the contrary, that is all that is involved in Spotlight & WinFS. Spotlight runs on HFS+. WinFS runs on NTFS. Both are databases stored as files on existing filesystems. The only difference between those databases & updatedb is that they may be using better database design (dunno) and that they update in real time via background processes.
I'm wrote a journal entry guessing as much about Spotlight, but since then more evidence has arrived, and I'm convinced that both WinFS & Spotlight are implemented that way. The features & implementation details are quite different, but not the filesystem.
We'll probably eventually start calling these databases a part of the "filesystem" much like right now some people will call mspaint.exe & bash a part of the operating system.
As it stands, you can quote Encyclopedia Britannica in any school essay. If I was marking some homework that relied on referencing Wikipedia, I'd have to fail them.
I haven't been allowed to quote an encyclopedia since gradeschool. If you are failing 12 year olds for quoting the Wikipedia, then you're just a dick. If you are allowing your 14 year old students to directly quote encyclopedias, then you're moving kind of slow, aren't you?
Yes, the Britannica has more fact-checking than Wikipedia. However, the value of that level on fact checking is lost to me. I want fact checking of primary sources & journal research. Even the Britanica is just a review.
This kind of unabashed optimism has got to stop. Now I'm at work and I'm getting all bleary eyed.
Success via trusting people & purity of ideals. G'damnit, this is going to have me verklempt for like a week.
P.S. Judging by your profile:I find it hard to believe that your sex slave is actually trying to escape. It's probably just a cry for help.
Please don't think that I'm jumping to the conclusion that he's guilty, as much as it appears so from my question.
Got it.
Drunk drivers routinely get sentenced to 5 years here in PA, and there's no intent there. The Model Penal Code authorizes sentences of up to 10 years for manslaughter (reckless killing of another--note the lack of intent), so I think my 5-10 years is about right.
Your 5-10 years may be perfectly in line with sentences for similar crimes in our justice system. I still think that it's unbelievably cruel and wasteful of tax dollars. I don't feel that anyone deserves to go to our prisons, so I'd prefer to only send people there when it is absolutely unavoidable. I'm just plain anti-prison. I realize my position might not be very popular.
The quoted portion of great-grandparent post is a subtle allusion to anal rape. Read between the lines.
I think this guy bears a very high degree of guilt. He was behaving at least very recklessly. Enough to support a murder charge, I don't know. Would have to actually see the trial. But it's close.
By degree of guilt, I meant that I am not sure he committed the crime he is being accused of. You are assuming that he is guilty of the crime he is accused of. Don't.
I would say parole the guy in maybe 5-10 years though.
Sending someone to prison for 5 years for a crime with no intent would be unbelievably cruel, and also unbelievably wasteful of tax dollars. If you feel that this crime constitutes criminal negligence, then I would expect a higher burden of proof than has been exhibited in this case.
If Guthry had already given up some of his rights to the song (as per his copyright notice), then he could not transfer those rights to his heirs. JibJab might very well wind up standing behind Woody Guthrie's original copyright notice in court. Your original comment:Is horseshit. It is leastaways completely irrelevant to Woody Guthry.
IANALBIPOOTV.
As I said in my previous post, there are very few people that I would actually send to prison.
This guy's crime, likelyhood of recidivism, and degree of guilt are not high enough for me to want him in jail rather than on the sidewalk.
I don't understand why you say "Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers." We do not do that to drunk drivers. Drunk drivers pay a lot of money and get back on the road. Drunk drivers are a revenue stream for local government.
Paying someone to follow him around all day would be much cheaper than sending him to prison.
Fortunately we already pay people to follow drivers around all day. They are called Highway Patrol.
There aren't many people that I think we should send to prison.
Never let this guy drive again. Sending him to jail isn't helping anyone, though.
The idea for a portable device is the ability to quickly turn it on and use it. This appears to be using a version of XP, which to me sounds like a boot sequence to start it. Does not make it very practical for keep track of PDA type stuff.
Modern PCs have a "sleep" function that uses minimal amounts of power while avoiding boot time when you need to use your computer.
There are many valid complaints about this device. Boot time isn't one of them.
I reckon the libertarian party is a lot more likely to eliminate unnecessary expansions of government than the greens or any "left wing" group.
Not when it comes to intellectual property. Go to their webpage (or the the Cato Institute) and look up their position. Remember that idiotic Rand Institute article on the subject? I realize that Libertarians are different from Randians are different from the Rand Institute, but it's only an exaggerated case. They are so obsessed with the sanctity of property that they can't see that IP is 100% a government invention. (And that's ok, but it's counter to most other Libertarian ideals.)
Many Libertarians don't feel that way, I'm sure. But it's not the party line.
But I see no reason to expect that the Greens are better. Most Americans fought over who had an idea first in kindergarten, and have never grown out of it. Everyone I speak to about the issue thinks of things almost like the French system: Artists have moral rights over their works, and it is wrong to infringe on them.
Google isn't bearing easy fruit, so I don't know what the Green position is. I see this, which is promising. Iduno. That's a reason to think that maybe the Greens are better.
SBC is a disincentive, not an incentive. Media piracy helps SBC, because they sell high speed internet access.
Depending on how vaguely INDUCE is termed & interpreted, (I have no idea about this.) SBC's current business practices could be considered illegal under the INDUCE act, and they may be required to change or face consequences. Dunno.
1) Grandparent poster was funny. Admit it. What is inherently childish about making a joke?
He's not mocking Christians. He's mocking insane Christians, who really do exist. Read about faith healers. Crazy.
2) What did his post have to do with Darwinism? Why did you bring that up?
3) Despite the article write-up, I fail to see how this gives evolutionists any more "ammo." (And I'm an evolutionist.)
If you find yourself debating evolution, and the evolutionist brings up this peice of news as a general peice of evidence for evolution, then you don't need to finish the conversation. The evolutionist obviously doesn't understand evolution. (This happens a lot.)
4) How did grandparent post offend you? I don't understand.